33 ms·

I don't know why people think that "I think Edward Snowden did the right thing" is incompatible with "Edward Snowden should be prosecuted to the full extent of

by thufry 13y ago

I don't know why people think that "I think Edward Snowden did the right thing" is incompatible with "Edward Snowden should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." If I run a stop sign to the hospital because my child has a serious injury, I did the right thing (as long as I did it safely), but I still expect to get a ticket for the violation. The reason that Snowden is being called a "hero" in some corners is because of the likely penalties for his actions, penalties that ensure that people don't blog about every piece of classified information that they find distasteful. Amnesty International really puts itself in a weird position by using the words "hunt down"... the US has simply made written requests of countries under existing treaties, requests which have been ignored by Hong Kong without immediate consequence. "Hunt down" implies something Seal Team Six-style.

potatolicious 13y ago
Because falling on your sword, while noble and makes for great story-telling, is unnecessary. Requiring whistleblowers to fall on their own swords discourages whistleblowing, which as a society we've in the past explicitly spelled out as desirable behavior. tl;dr: If you punish desirable behavior, desirable behavior won't happen.
- slg 13y ago
  You are making the leap to assume there will be punishment (probably a fair assumption, but an assumption nonetheless). He isn't yet being forced to fall on his sword. The US hasn't sentenced him to death or life in prison. The US is simply trying to bring him back to face his charges.
  - mixmax 13y ago
    charges of which he is obviously guilty and which are punishable by decades in prison or death. I think it's safe to assume there will be punishment if he is extradicted to the land of the free.
    - runeks 13y ago
      > charges of which he is obviously guilty and which are punishable by decades in prison or death. Could he really be sentenced to death? I'm not familiar with US law on the subject, so I'm curious. That really sounds scary :\
      - potatolicious 13y ago
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 Death is a possibility, depending on what he is charged with, though given the nature of the case I'd personally doubt the government would pursue it. It is, however, within the realm of possibility, especially after he revealed the anti-Chinese hacking information.
  - chc 13y ago
    "Prosecuted to the full extent of the law" cannot possibly mean anything but facing punishment. That's not really an assumption — it's right there in the thesis.
  - adventured 13y ago
    It's not a leap, simply put. It's the only logical outcome if he is caught. The government has been extraordinarily clear what will happen to Snowden. When you have some of the most powerful politicians calling him a traitor, along with clear statements from the intelligence community on the matter, it's all beyond obvious.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy? And that case could easily be made on Snowden if he shared certain information to select people and not the public (not saying he did, mind you, just demonstrating how easy it would be to cross that line). And do not mistake prosecution with guilt. On one hand, I'm glad he shared what he did, but I also fear what could happen should we blindly believe everything we are told, whether the person telling us is a member of the government, or a member of the government in a foreign country.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy? Those who look at the issue and arrive at a conclusion. If you let someone else make that decision for you: if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf? And if you are able, why not cut out the middleman?
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      I didn't mean so philosophically. I meant more practically. Unless you are suggesting a malicious spy leaking secrets to the enemy should only be treated like a whistleblower, which I seriously doubt is the case. > If you let someone else make that decision for you... Keeping this in context (being prosecuted or fleeing), that's what everyone is doing right now: allowing someone else to make that decision. Information being shared is only what interested parties want being shared (Snowden and the Governments). If Snowden was tried by a jury of his peers, would he be found guilty or innocent? Would he be a whistleblower or a spy? And yes, I'm ignoring things like would he get a fair trial and all that jazz. I just see what Snowden is doing as a very effective way to play the part of a spy. Sell X information secretly and share Y information publicly. Not suggesting that is what he is doing mind you. I'm just thinking out loud. > if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf? This happens all the time though. I trust my doctor with my health and my children's health. They explain things, but I still have to trust them. Sure, it's not exactly the same thing, but I feel it's close enough. Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others. Maybe that's too much down the rabbit hole, though. =)
- thufry 13y ago
  Whistleblowing is a desirable behavior only in certain situations, and the distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is one that is made on a case-by-case basis and open to reasonable debate in many cases. Snowden seems to be really treading quite heavily in this grey area with his disclosures of US cyberattacks on Chinese targets. Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    The distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is pretty clear. Espionage is done covertly for the benefit of a foreign power. Whistleblowing is done overtly and for the benefit of the public. You would have to be using a pretty stretched definition of "espionage" (like the one the US government uses) to think it has anything to do with whistleblowing.
    - thufry 13y ago
      Cut-and-dried espionage isn't a grey area. It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess. If a government employee leaked the details of the Osama Bin Laden raid and it subsequently failed, would that be for the benefit of the public? What about leaking the plans of the Union Army during the Civil War? In each case, the answer is not obvious -- the reason that leaking classified information is such a serious crime is that there are extreme, permanent costs to making the "wrong" decision.
      - shadowfox 13y ago
        > It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess I think that is what the OP is exhorting you to access for yourself.
        thufry 13y ago
        I can decide for myself, but by going public, a whistleblower decides for everyone.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
We're not talking about traffic tickets. Being convicted of espionage or treason can easily carry a life sentence or even the death penalty.
betterunix 13y ago
""Hunt down" implies something Seal Team Six-style." Is it unreasonable to expect such a thing? Suppose Snowden beats the odds and makes it to Ecuador. Would you be surprised to hear that he was found dead in his apartment in a year or two? Would you be shocked to learn that the US government was involved? Why should we trust the US government to follow the laws of Ecuador, Venezuela, or Cuba? Snowden runs a real risk of being covertly kidnapped without regard to the laws of whatever country he happens to be in. He runs a real risk of being killed by a drone strike. The US government has done all of the above in the recent past, to both citizens and foreigners, in various regions and countries.
- rdouble 13y ago
  Is it unreasonable to expect such a thing? Yes, because outside of the movies, the USA doesn't seem very good at that sort of thing. How would they seal team six someone out of Moscow, Ecuador or Hong Kong?
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Right, because as we all know the USA has never covertly assassinated someone, nor kidnapped someone from a foreign country, nor deployed drones... I guess if we ignore all the times the US government has done this sort of thing, you might be right.
  - tyrion 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case Just an example
  - thufry 13y ago
    They Seal-Team-Sixed Osama Bin Laden, and subsequently his corpse, out of a country on perennially high military alert. They couldn't do it in Moscow or Hong Kong without potentially starting a major war, but I could easily see them doing a targeted kill or extract from Ecuador. Seal Team Six's capabilities, as demonstrated in the OBL raid, are extremely high.
tyrion 13y ago
"Besides filing charges against Snowden, the US authorities have revoked his passport – which Amnesty International said interferes with his rights to freedom of movement and to seek asylum elsewhere." This to me seems a lot more like "hunt down" than "the US has simply made written requests of countries under existing treaties"
- thufry 13y ago
  Of course you revoke the passport of someone who has fled the country to avoid criminal charges -- the passport's purpose is to certify that the US government is certifying your travels abroad, which it certainly will not do for Edward Snowden unless the destination is the United States. Passport revocation is garden variety practice even for white collar criminals out on bail.
  - rdouble 13y ago
    It's also common for crimes like failure to pay child support.
csallen 13y ago
Snowden is, for all intents and purposes, protesting against the government and its laws. Why would he willfully return and subject himself to a system he considers unjust? I know the scale is different, but logically, what you're saying would be the equivalent of the founding fathers turning themselves in to England instead of starting a revolution.
namank 13y ago
The stop sign was made for you. You weren't made for the stop sign.
saraid216 13y ago
> I don't know why people think that "I think Edward Snowden did the right thing" is incompatible with "Edward Snowden should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." It's because the vast majority of people disbelieve in liberal democracy. They require heroes and villains in their news stories, and have difficulty acknowledging the existence of people outside of those categories; this is one of the biggest reasons why democracy is difficult.

by thufry 13y ago

potatolicious 13y ago

Because falling on your sword, while noble and makes for great story-telling, is unnecessary. Requiring whistleblowers to fall on their own swords discourages whistleblowing, which as a society we've in the past explicitly spelled out as desirable behavior. tl;dr: If you punish desirable behavior, desirable behavior won't happen.

slg 13y ago
You are making the leap to assume there will be punishment (probably a fair assumption, but an assumption nonetheless). He isn't yet being forced to fall on his sword. The US hasn't sentenced him to death or life in prison. The US is simply trying to bring him back to face his charges.
- mixmax 13y ago
  charges of which he is obviously guilty and which are punishable by decades in prison or death. I think it's safe to assume there will be punishment if he is extradicted to the land of the free.
  - runeks 13y ago
    > charges of which he is obviously guilty and which are punishable by decades in prison or death. Could he really be sentenced to death? I'm not familiar with US law on the subject, so I'm curious. That really sounds scary :\
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 Death is a possibility, depending on what he is charged with, though given the nature of the case I'd personally doubt the government would pursue it. It is, however, within the realm of possibility, especially after he revealed the anti-Chinese hacking information.
- chc 13y ago
  "Prosecuted to the full extent of the law" cannot possibly mean anything but facing punishment. That's not really an assumption — it's right there in the thesis.
- adventured 13y ago
  It's not a leap, simply put. It's the only logical outcome if he is caught. The government has been extraordinarily clear what will happen to Snowden. When you have some of the most powerful politicians calling him a traitor, along with clear statements from the intelligence community on the matter, it's all beyond obvious.
jasonlotito 13y ago
But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy? And that case could easily be made on Snowden if he shared certain information to select people and not the public (not saying he did, mind you, just demonstrating how easy it would be to cross that line). And do not mistake prosecution with guilt. On one hand, I'm glad he shared what he did, but I also fear what could happen should we blindly believe everything we are told, whether the person telling us is a member of the government, or a member of the government in a foreign country.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  But who decides whether you are whistleblower or a spy? Those who look at the issue and arrive at a conclusion. If you let someone else make that decision for you: if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf? And if you are able, why not cut out the middleman?
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    I didn't mean so philosophically. I meant more practically. Unless you are suggesting a malicious spy leaking secrets to the enemy should only be treated like a whistleblower, which I seriously doubt is the case. > If you let someone else make that decision for you... Keeping this in context (being prosecuted or fleeing), that's what everyone is doing right now: allowing someone else to make that decision. Information being shared is only what interested parties want being shared (Snowden and the Governments). If Snowden was tried by a jury of his peers, would he be found guilty or innocent? Would he be a whistleblower or a spy? And yes, I'm ignoring things like would he get a fair trial and all that jazz. I just see what Snowden is doing as a very effective way to play the part of a spy. Sell X information secretly and share Y information publicly. Not suggesting that is what he is doing mind you. I'm just thinking out loud. > if you're unable to make it yourself, how would you confirm they made the right decision on your behalf? This happens all the time though. I trust my doctor with my health and my children's health. They explain things, but I still have to trust them. Sure, it's not exactly the same thing, but I feel it's close enough. Basically, I can't know everything about everything. At some point, I have to trust others. Maybe that's too much down the rabbit hole, though. =)
thufry 13y ago
Whistleblowing is a desirable behavior only in certain situations, and the distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is one that is made on a case-by-case basis and open to reasonable debate in many cases. Snowden seems to be really treading quite heavily in this grey area with his disclosures of US cyberattacks on Chinese targets. Unless you're making the case that classified information shouldn't exist at all, in which case espionage can't exist, and the White House would be Tweeting military strategy before it was executed.
- betterunix 13y ago
  The distinction between whistleblowing and espionage is pretty clear. Espionage is done covertly for the benefit of a foreign power. Whistleblowing is done overtly and for the benefit of the public. You would have to be using a pretty stretched definition of "espionage" (like the one the US government uses) to think it has anything to do with whistleblowing.
  - thufry 13y ago
    Cut-and-dried espionage isn't a grey area. It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess. If a government employee leaked the details of the Osama Bin Laden raid and it subsequently failed, would that be for the benefit of the public? What about leaking the plans of the Union Army during the Civil War? In each case, the answer is not obvious -- the reason that leaking classified information is such a serious crime is that there are extreme, permanent costs to making the "wrong" decision.
    - shadowfox 13y ago
      > It's "for the benefit of the public" which can be hard to assess I think that is what the OP is exhorting you to access for yourself.
      - thufry 13y ago
        I can decide for myself, but by going public, a whistleblower decides for everyone.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

We're not talking about traffic tickets. Being convicted of espionage or treason can easily carry a life sentence or even the death penalty.

betterunix 13y ago

""Hunt down" implies something Seal Team Six-style." Is it unreasonable to expect such a thing? Suppose Snowden beats the odds and makes it to Ecuador. Would you be surprised to hear that he was found dead in his apartment in a year or two? Would you be shocked to learn that the US government was involved? Why should we trust the US government to follow the laws of Ecuador, Venezuela, or Cuba? Snowden runs a real risk of being covertly kidnapped without regard to the laws of whatever country he happens to be in. He runs a real risk of being killed by a drone strike. The US government has done all of the above in the recent past, to both citizens and foreigners, in various regions and countries.

rdouble 13y ago
Is it unreasonable to expect such a thing? Yes, because outside of the movies, the USA doesn't seem very good at that sort of thing. How would they seal team six someone out of Moscow, Ecuador or Hong Kong?
- betterunix 13y ago
  Right, because as we all know the USA has never covertly assassinated someone, nor kidnapped someone from a foreign country, nor deployed drones... I guess if we ignore all the times the US government has done this sort of thing, you might be right.
- tyrion 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case Just an example
- thufry 13y ago
  They Seal-Team-Sixed Osama Bin Laden, and subsequently his corpse, out of a country on perennially high military alert. They couldn't do it in Moscow or Hong Kong without potentially starting a major war, but I could easily see them doing a targeted kill or extract from Ecuador. Seal Team Six's capabilities, as demonstrated in the OBL raid, are extremely high.

tyrion 13y ago

"Besides filing charges against Snowden, the US authorities have revoked his passport – which Amnesty International said interferes with his rights to freedom of movement and to seek asylum elsewhere." This to me seems a lot more like "hunt down" than "the US has simply made written requests of countries under existing treaties"

thufry 13y ago
Of course you revoke the passport of someone who has fled the country to avoid criminal charges -- the passport's purpose is to certify that the US government is certifying your travels abroad, which it certainly will not do for Edward Snowden unless the destination is the United States. Passport revocation is garden variety practice even for white collar criminals out on bail.
- rdouble 13y ago
  It's also common for crimes like failure to pay child support.

csallen 13y ago

Snowden is, for all intents and purposes, protesting against the government and its laws. Why would he willfully return and subject himself to a system he considers unjust? I know the scale is different, but logically, what you're saying would be the equivalent of the founding fathers turning themselves in to England instead of starting a revolution.

namank 13y ago

The stop sign was made for you. You weren't made for the stop sign.

saraid216 13y ago

> I don't know why people think that "I think Edward Snowden did the right thing" is incompatible with "Edward Snowden should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." It's because the vast majority of people disbelieve in liberal democracy. They require heroes and villains in their news stories, and have difficulty acknowledging the existence of people outside of those categories; this is one of the biggest reasons why democracy is difficult.